Lolz

February 28, 2005

It seems, via Todd Zywicki, that the life of Arrested Development is endangered. For those of you who haven't seen it, AD is the funniest show on the air, simultaneously witty and vulgar, intelligent and crude. Moreover, it's the only show that causes you to laugh out loud for thirty minutes at a time. Plus, it's the only place where you can see Ellen DeGeneres' girlfriend, the former host of Mr. Show, and the Fonz at the same time. Anyway, there's a petition going to save it; consider signing. I'd personally prefer that it be transferred from Fox to a higher quality cable network; Cartoon Network would be nice, as it would fit well with Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Sealab 2021, Harvey Birdman, Tom Goes to the Mayor, and the ilk. However, the fact that it's live-action could hurt its chances at a slot at CN. In that case, HBO might be a good choice; it's been suffering since Sex and the City left, and the show's a good fit for it. But any continuation of this show is good. So sign.

It's a pity that Slim Pickens is no longer with us; he'd be perfect for the lead in a biopic of Rep. Sam Johnson [R-TX]:

Now we know where Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) thinks the weapons of mass destruction are buried: in Syria, which he said he’d like to nuke to smithereens.

Speaking at a veterans’ celebration at Suncreek United Methodist Church in Allen, Texas, on Feb. 19, Johnson told the crowd that he explained his theory to President Bush and Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) on the porch of the White House one night.

Johnson said he told the president that night, “Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on ‘em and I’ll make one pass. We won’t have to worry about Syria anymore.”

Via Matt Yglesias. First off, "those weapons of mass destruction" aren't in Syria; "those weapons of mass destruction" never existed. Secondly, an atomic attack on Syria would, if anything, only trigger them to use WMDs against us, while committing nuclear genocide on millions of innocent Syrians. Not that the right would mind; their favorite blogger has endorsed genocide, after all, specifically against Muslims. Lovely people, those conservatives.

I'm back, and, yes, I did see the Oscars. I've haven't seen Million Dollar Baby, but judging from the three Best Picture nominees I have seen (Sideways, Ray, and The Aviator), Ray was clearly the best of them. Sideways was mildly amusing, but blindingly obvious, and the Maya character was so one-dimensional it made me want to scream. The Aviator was perfectly well-made, but there didn't really seem to be a point to any of it. But I have long been a Scorsese partisan, so seeing Marty lose the directing award (to another freaking actor! First Robert Redford won for Ordinary People, robbing it from Scorsese for Raging Bull. Then Kevin Costner won for Dancing with Volves, robbing it from Scorsese for Goodfellas. Then Mel Gibson won for Braveheart, robbing it from Scorsese for Casino. Gah!!!!) was quite disappointing. But overall, the show was great. Chris Rock was his normal hilarious self; the Fahrenheit 9/11 section was great, as well as the section on "films so bad that they make you worry about the financial situation of the actors in them." However, I must say that the "if you can't find a star, just wait" section was tiresome. But it's still fun to see wingers proving, once again that they can't take a joke (how dare the Academy ignore an obscure Dutch filmmaker! how dare they!).

P.S. For more winger fun, see John Hinderaker, one of Time's bloggers of the year, waxing fascist, and Ann Coulter proving that she is the most ignorant person on television.

The Democrats simply have refused to learn the lessons of the past two election cycles, and now they can be accurately called the party of Barbara Boxer, Lynne Stewart, and Howard Dean

.

While I've defended Stewart, these people clearly think she's guilty, and thus are consciously calling Democrats terrorist symps. The MSM's "blog of the year" has called an ex-POTUS a traitor, and the most influential blogger online has called a great American statesman the same. This is the voice of the right, and it's disgusting.

Matt Yglesias and Ross Douthat, via the former, are now officially associate members of the media "gang", whatever that means. Matt makes an obligatory rap song reference, and so far nothing has been heard from from Ross. Anyway, all I know is that someone who writes this is definitely big media:

Earlier this afternoon I was on a conference call with Sen. John Corzine, Rep. Sander Levin, and Nobel Prize–winning economist Joseph Stiglitz to talk about the Greenspan testimony

Matt Yglesias points out Ayatollah Khomeini's website, which features advice on, er, sensitive topics. If only Bush would do such a thing; it would make me the happiest man on Earth. I personally prefer Ayatollah Sistani's website. Anyone who bans chess under all circumstances but allows anal and oral sex is worthy of blog attention.

February 15, 2005

Political sources in Jerusalem expressed satisfaction Tuesday at the decision by the United States to recall its envoy from Syria following the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in Beirut.

"This step underscores our argument that Syria's intentions for peace must be treated with caution," the sources said.

Before departing, U.S. Ambassador Margaret Scobey delivered a stern note, called a demarche in diplomatic parlance, to the Syrian government, a U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Tuesday.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, announcing the U.S. move, said that it the Bush administration's "profound outrage" over Hariri's assassination.

The administration had earlier condemned Monday's killing in Beirut of Hariri, the billionaire construction magnate who masterminded the recovery of his country and insisted that Syria comply with a UN resolution calling for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said it was still unclear who was responsible for the attack but the United States was consulting with other members of the UN Security Council about how to pressure Syria to leave Lebanon.

"Syria's presence in Lebanon is a destabilizing force," McClellan said. "The terrorist attack further underscores the importance of letting the Lebanese people control their future."

Via Charles Johnson. Currently, the only nations we don't have embassies in, to the best of my knowledge, are Sudan, Libya, Iran, Cuba, and North Korea (yes, we have a special envoy to Sudan, and yes, we don't have representation in Taiwan (unless you count this), but that isn't out of bad relations, as this is). So this is huge, and for me, quite bizarre. You see, most of my impressions about the Middle East were formed by news coverage of individual countries. Jordan and Syria were the kinds of countries whose leaders had interviews with Time and Newsweek, and spoke like reasoned, sober policy analysts. I can't count the number of interviews I've read with Bashar Assad. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran were the kind of countries that were shady, suspicious, and generally evil, whose leaders were secretive tyrants. So, to me, Assad just doesn't seem like the kind of person who would assassinate a former Prime Minister, or support international terror. Of course, he is just that sort of person, and I'm quite glad that it's finally being made clear that his behavior is intolerable. And it's not surprising that Bush would be taking action. The war in Iraq was spearheaded by the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which counted prominent neoconservatives Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Richard Perle as members. Those two also belonged to the U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon, along with Elliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, and Paula Dobriansky, all current or former high level Bush administration figures. So, it's not surprising that he's pursuing a policy of getting Syria out of Lebanon.

February 14, 2005

If you have any doubts of Lynne Stewart's innocence, read this article:

Her troubles began over a dozen years ago when she undertook the representation of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind cleric convicted in connection with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. The sheik, convicted of conspiracy in 1995 along with nine other people, was eventually sentenced to life and imprisoned in a solitary-confinement cell in Minnesota. He was also subjected to highly restrictive "special administrative measures"—designed by the government to silence those whose views or knowledge or influence it considers dangerous.

Despite his conviction, Ms. Stewart continued to advocate for the sheik. But in order to meet with him in prison, she had to sign an agreement abiding by the terms of those SAMs—among them a prohibition against presenting the sheik's views in public. Stewart needed to see her client. She signed the forms.

The problem was that at some point in her representation, Stewart decided that the only way to ameliorate the sheik's sentence and the terms of his confinement was to keep his case in the public eye in the hopes that he'd be allowed to serve out his sentence in Egypt. Stewart faced a difficult situation—the right thing for her client was something the government had made her promise not to do. But in Stewart's mind, the client came first. She called the press.

As a result of that call, Ms. Stewart was herself indicted and charged with lying to the government (for violating the conditions of the SAMs) and with providing material aid to terrorism. Essentially, her decision to advocate for the sheik by talking to the press in order to keep his case in the spotlight was what was on trial. According to the government, by making those statements Stewart herself became part of a terrorist conspiracy.

Read the whole thing; it's really horrendous what she was subjected to.

Matt Yglesias has a great post on Democrats and trade, framed as a response to Kenneth Baer's recent New Republicarticle:

But Kenny makes a really good point with regard to globalization and trade. Here, there quite clearly is a divide between free traders and our opponents, as numerous comments section debates on this site attests. What's more, as Kenny argues, there's something extremely problematic about the way Democrats have handled this to date. Kerry basically fudged in hopes of avoiding an intra-party clash. The upshot of that is that he couldn't adopt a strong message on trade. But as you'll see if you read Brad Delong's recent article on trade in The Atlantic, the economic consequences of globalization are about to hit a new and massively important phase. It's crucially important that the Democrats say something sensible about this. My preference (and Brad's and, I think, Kenny's) is that they take a good, correct, liberal free trading position. But from the point of view of pure cynicism, I think you could make a political sale of either liberal free trade or liberal protectionism. What you can't sell in the face of enormous economic dislocations is muddle and mixed messages. That means forcing the next cycle's primary candidates to really fight amongst themselves over the issue so that we either nominate someone with a mandate to run as a free trader, or else choose a candidate who'll run as a protectionist.

There are some policy issues in which there are no opinions, only facts. This is one of those issues. Free trade is good for the economy, for democracy, and for workers abroad. There is no logical reason to oppose it other than F.U.D. - fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Along with evolution, abortion, church-state separation, and gay marriage, this is one of those issues that I just won't compromise on. Because there is only one right position, and failing to take it would be disastrous. Kerry's position was disappointing, but better than many, particularly Kucinich, and, more than I was willing to admit, Dean. We need to stand together for trade, or we will start becoming the fact-denying maniacs that are so quickly absorbing the Republican party.